What is great music and why isn't Beethoven that great after all

[Tricky-Loops]

Already made some revisions and corrected some inaccuracies. Keep them coming and thanks for all the feedback and ideas!

Would be nice if you'd let us know what you've changed, because reading the same story over and over is like listening mainstream radio...

[Sounddigger]

A somewhat larger essay but it contains some important reflections from the past four years, feedback would be greatly appreciated.

http://tiagovideira.com/2013/03/26/what ... after-all/

If you contend that today's composer's (which you mostly seem to limit to pop & rock genres, and/or of non-European origin) are "great" because they somehow capture so well the spirit and feelings of our times (and whatever else you want to associate to that), then you might arguably have a valid point.

But if THAT's your real point, then it's not very sincere to reject the music of Beethoven and the likes, merely because YOU think it has lost its value today. If nothing else, based on your argumentation, then Beethoven and his works should be cherished as an immeasurably GREAT heritage, of HIS time, at least.

To step out of the field for a moment, are you also suggesting that the works of artists like Michelangelo, DaVinci, Rembrand, or monuments like the Gizeh pyramids, the Acropolis, the Taj Mahal, and so forth, are "not great", because now we have so many contemporary alternatives to admire?

To rephrase one of your writings: what is so great about that view? And what is so great about your piece?

To be honest, the most I can make of your presentation is that you seem to be fairly brainwashed into disliking music of European heritage. A typical result of the so called "Frankfurt school" / "Frankfurter Schule" (look it up if you don't know about it), reinforced by media that is controlled by big industry and a sinister agenda to destroy as much human values as it can. Not pleasant.

If nothing else, your view on the music of our time and of the many centuries before it, is extremely immature.

Can you imagine that there are people who love music by Beethoven and most other European composers from before the 20th century, just as much as they love non-European music of all kind, and the incredible melting pot that can be found in Jazz and electronic music? Well I got news for you...

By the way, you mention Dulce Pontes as being a composer. She isn't. She's only a singer, with sure enough a talent for passionate emotions, but that's beside the point. To give her as a first example of composers who "push my buttons", shows a superficial approach to the subject.

Then you go as far as to try a "tiny more provocation", by writing: "Frank Zappa was clearly the greatest composer of the XX century."

Either you don't know Frank Zappa's work very well, or you don't know some of the quintessential composers of the XXth century you should compare him with.

I've listened A LOT to Frank Zappa's music, especially because so many people claim he's such an incredible composer.

Frankly, I prefer his Rock&Roll and related kind of work, especially his Mothers of Invention period. Lots of humor, lots of nice rock and whatever fitted into it.

On the other hand, works like his "Black Page" and his orchestral works are seriously overrated, in my opinion (to my "taste", if you prefer). Just like most of the work he recorded on his Synclavier. It's more about trying to create music that is "brilliant", then about creating music. And if you'd know a thing or two about his personality, you would know that this would definitely characterize the man, i.e. he was always trying to impress in one way or another, especially with his wit.

To be more precise, these works have very few pleasant melodic or harmonic material. It's just basically not music that tries to please in any way at all, besides showing off witty scales, arpeggios, rhythms, use of odd intervals, odd meters, and what have you. And just take a look at that title: "The Black Page". It's not about the music at all, it's about the fact that the "amazingly brilliant" notes add up into a page that is black with notes! That sums up Frank Zappa's attempts at writing music that could be called "classical", really. It definitely comes nowhere near the quality of the works by K. Stockhausen, I. Xenakis and L. Berio, whom you mention.

In contrast, many of L. v. Beethoven's works have "black pages" in them. His work is GREAT indeed: if nothing else, the body of his work is HUGE, the amount of work is enormous. Have you counted all the pages that go into even a single of his symphonies? Have you computed how much pages he penned throughout his life? That, by itself, deserves to be called GREAT, i.e. a GREAT amount of work. And there's not a single composer since (say) the 1950s who can touch that (not even the 3 mentioned previously, although they all have created works that are great). Still, Beethoven was never out to impress people with "black pages". It was all about the music (and some of his philosophical and political views, but fortunately, you don't have to notice that much).

You write/ask that someone should explain WHY the music of L. v. Beethoven is great.

Well, the above gives a few pointers to begin with. But even if you don't like it as an answer: why not let the music speak for itself? You may have heard some of it, since you mention you like the 2nd part of the 7th, but you also write that it's all "I-V7" stuff and nothing special for that matter. Well, take another listen. Try for example the beginnings of the 7th, or of the 3rd and the 4th. And next time you hear a "I-V7", try to hear how composers like Beethoven excel in creating the most incredible variations on this deceptively simple chord change, with results as diverse as the main themes of the 5th and the 9th.

There are MANY reasons why the music of L. v. Beethoven is still GREAT... for those with the ears to hear and a heart to feel. And it goes without saying that many composers of his time have created works that are GREAT, but lets limit things for the moment.

A number of reasons why Beethoven's music is GREAT:

* Outstanding craftmanship throughout every single page. Why is it outstanding? Because the music is built as solid as a formidable temple, great foundations (chords, orchestration, huge consonant/resonant sounds), great outlines (melodies), great ornaments (variations), etc... In contrast, many contemporary music might be built as solid as a concrete building, similar to much modern architecture, but it most often lacks truly great melodies, variations and refinement, and by consequence human warmth.

* It's music that is made to be listened to. It's not just "ambient" noise for in the background. It can be danced to, but most people would think that odd, although quite a few ballets have been created to his music. Some of the works last up to an hour and will reward anyone who will listen to it (with an open mind and heart, that is). Note that this point raises the issue of how there's music for different purposes and occasions. You don't want to impose one of Beethoven's symphonies on the crowd you got together for your birthday party, unless maybe within a rather special context. In reverse, you don't want to listen to EDM when you need some introspection (/meditation) or when you're trying to go to sleep.

* The music offers more than enough to be like a time-capsule. It resonates the emotions, passions, rhythms, and ideas of its time. This is by itself more than enough reason to cherish it as a priceless heritage.


You've asked for some feedback. Well here you have some. The question is if you can appreciate it in a truly honest way.

To sum it up: open your heart, and give the music the time it deserves. Even if you can't appreciate much European music of the 1500-1900s now, music has this strange property of growing on you over time.

To give you an example, I used to really freak out over Mozart. Thought it was all just "I-V7" stuff, just like you. And then one day, it all changed. Presently, I can hardly get enough of it (although I will listen to it when the time is right - if you know your Indian music, you'll know that they have a deep understanding of how every part of the day, or any occasion for that matter, has music that suits it best; it works the same way for classical music).

Let me leave it at that. Give things time, give all music a fair chance, and accept that you have many things to discover yet... don't throw away the baby with the bath-water. Don't spit on what so many people have worked so hard to gather for our pleasure as well, when there's so much you could take from it. If you can't enjoy some of it, then why pump more negative energy into this world by bashing it?

I didn't know about this peanuts cartoon but it is certainly more than adequate! It just shows that under a different system of values/references anything can be devalued (or vice-versa).

Of course if you go to Africa, for example, they won't play Beethoven because they wouldn't like it and they wouldn't need it. They would take some drums and make polyphonic rhythms, and some house wifes would "sing" (or let's better say: chant) in chorus, and they would have more fun than sitting still in a concert and listening to Beethoven.

A deceased German director (Schlingensief) wanted to construct a Opera house in Africa (and now it's already finished by his young widow, I think). But the question is (even if I liked Mr. Schlingensief): Do they really NEED a Opera house in Africa?

Although I suspect you didn't mean it that way, in fact this is a pretty contemptuous comment. It's denigrating as well to European music as to Africans.

It shows how easy this discussion can slide into unadulterated trash...

I remember once how a drummer criticized me for listening to traditional African drummers (i.e. rare field recordings from the 1950s and even older), as he thought it being silly "primitive" stuff of little interest. Now this guy was a drummer!! Think he could 've learned a few things from those "primitive" rhythms? You bet!

The reverse is also true, people who are only used to cyclical rhythms and chants, can learn a thing or two from music that builds on the idea of continuously evolving themes and harmonies.

[Musicologo]

Sounddigger, I truly appreciate feedback when it is related to what I have written, unfortunately you don't answer to any of my questions. You make a lot of false assumptions that are not in my text and I've said none of it. I suggest you to re-read my text because you did not understand it at all.

I respect Beethoven a lot, that was not the point. If you read the text there are all the reasons there why he (and Mozart, Bach, etc) should be respected, and why they've become important. My argument is way broader than that, my argument just shows that there are other crafts and traditions that should be respected and valued as well.

I am perfectly aware of the school of frankfurt and I have nothing to do it with. You are extracting assumptions that are not in my text.

Dulce Pontes is a composer sorry if you don't know her work at all. She has albuns of original songs (namely "o Primeiro canto") and numerous original compositions. She is a wonderful performer as well, but she has her own works. And her work "Ondeia" for instance is absolutely beautiful. But this is just assumed personal taste, and it's not there for the sake of the argument. This was just another inaccuracy of yours.

All the reasons you present why one should like beethoven and perhaps not like zappa that much are correct. And are mentioned by me as well in the text. But again, their humanity, their life, their effort, their craft, are a system of values inside a context, a time and a culture. Are not universal, and that's the point. We, as westerns inside that tradition value those things, someone not brought into that culture and values might not value them.

I think you are just seeing some skewed trees in the forest of my argument and not really grasping the point I'm trying to convey.

[Sounddigger]

Sounddigger, I truly appreciate feedback when it is related to what I have written, unfortunately you don't answer to any of my questions. You make a lot of false assumptions that are not in my text and I've said none of it. I suggest you to re-read my text because you did not understand it at all.

You are treating people for being dumb, that's dumb..., and not very nice at all

Here's a re-read + quote of your text:

"What is great music and why isn't Beethoven that great after all"

That is the TITLE of your piece.

Now please explain to me how I'm not addressing these words (and quite a few of your other comments) in my post.

Thank you...

I respect Beethoven a lot, that was not the point.

Can't read anywhere that you respect Beethoven "a lot", just that you (kind of) like the 2nd part of his 7th...

If you read the text there are all the reasons there why he (and Mozart, Bach, etc) should be respected, and why they've become important.

Quote? Can't remember reading any such comments (unless you've edited them in, meanwhile).

My argument is way broader than that, my argument just shows that there are other crafts and traditions that should be respected and valued as well.

So? How is it that the fact that some music and musicians are undervalued this would make that of known music and musicians "not great"?

It's a totally falacious proposal, simply contemptuous, and not doing anyone a service. What is clearly meant to be taken away from your piece is that music by Beethoven and the likes should be moved to the bin. If that's not what should be understood from it, then sorry, you have simply written a very bad piece.

I am perfectly aware of the school of frankfurt and I have nothing to do it with. You are extracting assumptions that are not in my text.

It's not an assumption, it's an observation. You seem to underestimate its far-reaching influence, even on you.

All the reasons you present why one should like beethoven and perhaps not like zappa that much are correct. And are mentioned by me as well in the text.

Not when I read it, a few hours ago... (not going over it another time, though).

But again, their humanity, their life, their effort, their craft, are a system of values inside a context, a time and a culture. Are not universal, and that's the point.

Bad point. Neither are Ragas or Gamalan music "universal", if you put it that way.

In contrast, I would say that Beethoven's music just like any other music in the world contains MANY universal aspects, which starts at how sounds, melodies and harmonies are built, but which can also be found on emotional, geometric, and other grounds.

We, as westerns inside that tradition value those things, someone not brought into that culture and values might not value them.

Your language betrays hidden intentions that leave a foul taste in my mouth. Can't put it any other way.

You talk about "tradition" and "cultural values", i.e. politics, while I talk about the music.

I think you are just seeing some skewed trees in the forest of my argument and not really grasping the point I'm trying to convey.

Clearly, you were not prepared for critical feedback, and can only reply by claiming a lack of intelligence in those who give such critique. A weak defence to say the least!

[Sounddigger]

Dulce Pontes is a composer sorry if you don't know her work at all. She has albuns of original songs (namely "o Primeiro canto") and numerous original compositions. She is a wonderful performer as well, but she has her own works. And her work "Ondeia" for instance is absolutely beautiful. But this is just assumed personal taste, and it's not there for the sake of the argument. This was just another inaccuracy of yours.

Then that went under my radar.

So why didn't you add Madonna and Justin Bieber to the list? Is it because they're too famous?

[stillshaded]

lol wut!?

yea Beethoven wasn't that great. Right. Yea. OK. Good point.

[Musicologo]

Sounddigger,

I'll try to make it easier quoting and requoting what is there for everyone to see:

Moreover, I think that the "soul" one is referring to, most of the times is attributed based on several other parameters than the mere "sound" - concerning Beethoven is attributed also regarding the concept that "Beethoven was a man, learned a craft, his work reflects a suffering, a living, an experience on the planet, represents symbolically a whole set of values that are praised in our civilization, etc, etc, etc". But all those "values" and "characteristics" are given subjectively and from the exterior.

If everything is externally attributed because it is within ourselves and not in music - then we must find out what is inherent and equal in everyone of us.

That being said, we all have a heart beat that is somewhat steady around 60 beats per minute…

This is one objective and mensurable reason for our inner time and pulse have a common feeling regarding steady beats and rhythms and perceive slow music as calmer and fast music as exciting.

Also there must be something universal that can be deducible out of the harmonic series or the harmonics, although I don't know exactly what, after being baffled discovering that there are actually some cultures in Indonesia area that have "larger octaves than octaves" and thus breaking the "universality consensus around the octave pattern".

Those two paragraphs explain why Beethoven is and should be praised.
The next paragrpahs explain the only thing that is natural in music, so unlike you say I'm not talking about POLITICS, I'm talking about music because I defend there are no universals in music and you haven't shown me otherwise.

You keep insisting in craft and harmonies and other parameters. I explained in my text why all those parameters are artificial and culturally constructed. They are not universal and natural. It's all in the text. Again you're not adding anything to the discussion because you were unable to understand what I have said.

I remind you of what I really say:

- Music has no intrinsic value, all is attributed externally
- The invention of symbolic notation in europe around 1300 was a cultural paradigm and a new way to conceive, produce and consume music. That paradigm somehow become dominant in some circles and minds...
- The technology on the XX century brought up a new paradigm making a shift in music production and consumption, thus shifting the values. Based on the new values other artists should be valued more and others valued less. Somehow this shift is not being currently addressed as it should and it is still being judged under the same values as those who praise the values of symbolic notation - even applying those values to traditions that were never meant to use them (like popular music).



These are my arguments and assumptions. All are explained and exposed. You never mentioned them or why are they wrong. I don't want to discuss "music" I want to discuss the processes. The title of my essay is just a wittyness to draw attention to them. I put there beethoven but could put ANY other composer, the argument stands the same - every composer can be seen as great or rubbish, it all depends on values and a certain tradition.

[dune_rave]

Beethoven ....
He's the guy who wrote the soundtrack of Clockwork Orange

[Sounddigger]

Sounddigger,

I'll try to make it easier quoting and requoting what is there for everyone to see:

Moreover, I think that the "soul" one is referring to, most of the times is attributed based on several other parameters than the mere "sound" - concerning Beethoven is attributed also regarding the concept that "Beethoven was a man, learned a craft, his work reflects a suffering, a living, an experience on the planet, represents symbolically a whole set of values that are praised in our civilization, etc, etc, etc". But all those "values" and "characteristics" are given subjectively and from the exterior.

If everything is externally attributed because it is within ourselves and not in music - then we must find out what is inherent and equal in everyone of us.

That being said, we all have a heart beat that is somewhat steady around 60 beats per minute…

This is one objective and mensurable reason for our inner time and pulse have a common feeling regarding steady beats and rhythms and perceive slow music as calmer and fast music as exciting.

Also there must be something universal that can be deducible out of the harmonic series or the harmonics, although I don't know exactly what, after being baffled discovering that there are actually some cultures in Indonesia area that have "larger octaves than octaves" and thus breaking the "universality consensus around the octave pattern".

Those two paragraphs explain why Beethoven is and should be praised.

Sorry, can't read it in there at all.

"But all those "values" and "characteristics" are given subjectively and from the exterior." = praise Beethoven???

Maybe you've hidden some kind of code in there. Please explain to us "simpletons"...

The next paragrpahs explain the only thing that is natural in music, so unlike you say I'm not talking about POLITICS, I'm talking about music because I defend there are no universals in music and you haven't shown me otherwise.

You keep insisting in craft and harmonies and other parameters. I explained in my text why all those parameters are artificial and culturally constructed. They are not universal and natural. It's all in the text. Again you're not adding anything to the discussion because you were unable to understand what I have said.

There you go again. Not nice, and a very weak defense.

I said enough about it already. If you can't understand constructive critical feedback, then that's your problem, not mine (although it could become mine if I'd worry about your lack of understanding what it means to get constructive feedback).

I remind you of what I really say:

- Music has no intrinsic value, all is attributed externally

So it is for food, until you get to know it...

- The invention of symbolic notation in europe around 1300 was a cultural paradigm and a new way to conceive, produce and consume music. That paradigm somehow become dominant in some circles and minds...

So?

Are you implying with pointing out this "paradigm" (inappropriate word in this context, by the way) that music that was written down is "not that great after all", and music that wasn't written down is somehow better, or "great"?

Explain to me how that works... if it's true, I should get more of that stuff, and burn every score I own!

- The technology on the XX century brought up a new paradigm making a shift in music production and consumption, thus shifting the values. Based on the new values other artists should be valued more and others valued less.

Speak for yourself! Don't try to use pseudo-intellectual writings to change what you perceive to be people's undesired "values".

Now if you'd propose breaking the monopolies that a tiny number of corporations have over the media, allowing more lesser known music to be known, including classical music, THAT would be a very good point. Unfortunately, you're essentially trying to push cultural genocide, nothing less...

Somehow this shift is not being currently addressed as it should and it is still being judged under the same values as those who praise the values of symbolic notation - even applying those values to traditions that were never meant to use them (like popular music).

You're talking politics. BOLLOCKS!!

Nuff said...

These are my arguments and assumptions. All are explained and exposed. You never mentioned them or why are they wrong. I don't want to discuss "music" I want to discuss the processes.

No, you're talking politics = BOLLOCKS!! There, said it again...

The title of my essay is just a wittyness to draw attention to them. I put there beethoven but could put ANY other composer, the argument stands the same - every composer can be seen as great or rubbish, it all depends on values and a certain tradition.

Bad title, not really witty, bad format, bad essay in which you do nothing to change the meaning of your title.

Take that as an encouragement to do something positive about it

[Sounddigger]

Beethoven ....
He's the guy who wrote the soundtrack of Clockwork Orange

A great and classic picture about mind-control, and how to turn listening to beautiful classical music into a hellish and fatally weakening experience.

Here we're discussing about the writings of someone who's trying the same thing, but with "soft" methods, using pseudo-intellectual arguments.

Take note!

[Musicologo]

Sounddigger,
I explicitly pointed out point per point my assumptions.

you didn't refute ANY of them. You just admitted you couldn't either understand them or said "bollocks", instead of giving evidence why are they wrong and which are the correct ones.

The most important one: "Music has no intrinsic quality - everything is attributed externally" is the more blatant one. Either you agree with this or not. If not, you have then to explain why, because there is no evidence whatsoever of this, to my knowledge.

If you refuse to discuss the foundations of the essay (and why they are wrong to you) it's obvious you can't discuss what follows.

[nix808]

Music's intrinsic quality is that it is ordered sound IMO
Often noise would not be considered music

[Sounddigger]

Sounddigger,
I explicitly pointed out point per point my assumptions.

you didn't refute ANY of them. You just admitted you couldn't either understand them or said "bollocks", instead of giving evidence why are they wrong and which are the correct ones.

The most important one: "Music has no intrinsic quality - everything is attributed externally" is the more blatant one. Either you agree with this or not. If not, you have then to explain why, because there is no evidence whatsoever of this, to my knowledge.

That statement is an empty shell. It poses as having an "intrinsic quality", but has nothing else to offer than a superficial intellectual pose... attributed externally, of course.

Will that do as an explanation?

Guess not, so let me illustrate your point by applying your approach to something else: "Life has no intrinsic value - everything is attributed externally".

There. D'ya like that?

If I'm following you correctly, we should therefore get rid of life, right?

See the shallowness?

Oh, and for those interested in the logical construction at issue, I refer to the words of Descartes: "I think, therefore I am". Life only gets meaning and "intrinsic quality" once you start to think about it. The same applies for music. ANY music.

As well as any discussion, for that matter...

[Musicologo]

That order is not universal and it is attributed externally. It is perceived by each listener individually.

What is music to me might not be to you.

There is no empiric evidence of universality regarding "order" or "noise" (John Cage pushed that boundary well...)

[Sounddigger]

Music's intrinsic quality is that it is ordered sound IMO
Often noise would not be considered music

That's food for a genuinely wonderful discussion.

Varèse is famous for having called music "organized noise", and then there's also something called "musique concrète".

One man's music, can be another man's noise, and vice versa.

Still, that doesn't mean that there aren't fairly objective criteria by which one can identify that some music is "great", and some "not so great", on various levels. But please, let's leave politics out of it...